The EU debate - Part III

Pity most other nations have leader who believe in sky pixies of one sort or another.

 

In reality you must be livid Kustard. This is exactly what you didn't want

 

I wouldn't argue against that soon becoming true, but it's not quite happened yet.

I think you'll find that quite a lot of Western Civilisation was influenced by 'imaginary fairies', the 'imaginary fairies' you will only publicly denounce as well to be more precise.

 

I'm not sure what the point is supposed to be other than phoney outrage and snide remarks.

Is Christianity an issue?

 

Western civilisation was influenced by many things- it doesn't make them all positive. As a society we should be beyond letting any religion have any influence.

How many people in the UK go to church still? Very few- nowhere near half the country I'd guess even if slightly above half still tick the Christian box on a form.

 

Never had you down as a complete bitch

 

No more than being a follower of Islam, Judaism or any other of the dozens of religions that exist.

 

Christianity is a valid as any other religion.
And like most other religions it is used by some to justify cruel attitudes.

 

There's a difference between justifying attitudes, and justifying extreme actions though.

 

So you're not going to answer my question and are going to continue to deflect, then?
Is this a Hull thing or just the particular group of people on this thread?

 

There's virtually no disagreement within the scientific community about this.
It's disturbing to see so much of it from anyone in a significant political position.

 

And that is exactly the point that needs to be made. It's not a religion problem but an extremist problem. All religions have these nut jobs who interpretate things to suit their own prejudices

 

Extremist is an odd term, given that an extreme Jainist would be more loving and harm less of the earth.

I think there's one religion at the moment that has people accepting of the text of their book.

The bible has a lot of nasty bits, but few if any live by it.

 

I think that you'll find that it's the actual fascists that are the modern fascists.
You know, the ones praising one side of this discussion and pushing that agenda.

Don't let it stop your continual game of I'm Rubber, You're Glue, though.
No fascist! No fascist! You're the fascist!

 

Wouldn't disagree ... but I think that most religions have "followers" that do both.
The Protestant UVF and USA supporters and Catholic IRA supporters used their beliefs to justify their terrorist acts.
Most religions have their violent extremists (both in terms of justifying the unjustifiable and committing actual act of violence) so I am not a believer that ant is better or worse than another. And I do not judge anyone's beliefs on what the extremists in the religion do.
Not saying you do.

 

Pretty much what I said, you just dispute which side are pushing an agenda and hurling labels and epithets.

 

What were the positives that were influenced by Christianity?

Whether someone goes to church or not doesn't define their faith.

 

Most of those committing extremist actions in defence of their faith tend to have a very limited knowledge of it.
They tend to be radicalised for that reason, unfortunately.

 

The Irish trouble were political, not religious. It happened that the sides of the political divide also largely matched the religious, but they were not using the bible to justify their actions.

 

You just get annoyed when someone says something that's blatantly racist and they're correctly called a racist.
That's why the alt-right came up with different names for their bullshit, like alt-right itself.
It's not pushing an agenda to point out ****ty behaviour, I'm afraid.